5 ms·

This is an interesting argument. I wonder how it would be handled if Facebook instead had a 2-tier system where both tiers were paid. So you'd have to pay a bas

This is an interesting argument. I wonder how it would be handled if Facebook instead had a 2-tier system where both tiers were paid. So you'd have to pay a base fee to use Facebook (and get tracked) and then a premium tier to remove the tracking. Putting aside the obvious ethical issues with such a system (that are obviously the reason why NOYB is filing), the "as easy to withdraw as it is to give" setup would be kept in such a situation I think. Ethically, paying for privacy has in my opinion no place in a post-GDPR world (and I do support the GDPR) and it's shameful that several DPAs have tacitly approved of it for local newspapers. Facebook doing it will likely drag the practice to CJEU, which is the worst outcome for this scheme because CJEU tends to not like GAFAMs "it's not against the letter, but against the spirit" crap in the slightest. I personally wouldn't be surprised if CJEU ends up shooting down the scheme as violating the GDPR.

TomasEkeli 3y ago
could you please explain what those abbreviations mean? I know GDPR, but the rest are obscure to me.
- noirscape 3y ago
  NOYB: "None of Your Business", it's the site being linked. They're a customer rights activist group led by Max Schrems whose self-declared job appears to be "drag every business in the world to the attention of the DPAs to make sure they're both compliant and don't do any funny business with the GDPR". DPA: Data Protection Authority. They're local to each EU country (including those that aren't full Member States but do follow EU laws) and it's their job to enforce the GDPR at a country level. Usually they're a government department. The one you hear the most in the context of GAFAM enforcement is the Irish one, which is infamously underequipped and overburdened because GAFAM has lobbied the Irish government to not take enforcement seriously so all GAFAM companies can put their EU headquarters there (which permits them to only have to comply with the Irish DPA, something called the "one-stop shop" solution.) CJEU: Court of Justice of the European Union. Think SCOTUS but for the EU. While technically the CJEU doesn't operate on the concept of precedent (its main job is enforcing that Member States follow EU laws and directives correctly), their interpretations of EU law are the final interpretation of those laws. Usually once a case has gone through a DPA and isn't resolved satisfactorily (or isn't complied with), it ends up before CJEU. GAFAM has dragged basically all enforcement cases before CJEU to drag out the process. GAFAM: An abbreviation referring to the five largest American tech giants: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft. Usually is used as a shorthand for the "big tech" side of the IT industry.
  - screwt 3y ago
    With Google->Alphabet and Facebook->Meta, we can now use MAAAM instead.
    - knowriju 3y ago
      I personally would prefer MAMAA instead
  - ahahahahah 3y ago
    Interesting, how many of the 100s of newspapers in the EU that are doing exactly the same thing as Facebook has he dragged into court for doing it? They've been doing it for a lot longer. I do see some cases against Conde Nast, but that's not for this behavior. I do think it's good though when somebody will go and try to take the most extreme position of some law so that the lawmakers will maybe realize that they got it wrong.
    - cccbbbaaa 3y ago
      https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illegal-decides-german-dpa https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
latexr 3y ago
> the "as easy to withdraw as it is to give" setup would be kept in such a situation I think. Debatable. Let’s say the base fee was 1€ and premium was 1000000€. Not many people could afford the latter. Even if it were 25€, or 10€, or even lower, as long as there’s any price discrepancy, one is not as easy as the other.
- xvector 3y ago
  Who cares? No one is making you use Facebook. It is totally okay to walk away and say "nah, I don't want to be tracked." You can consume alcohol and various drugs in the EU but can't say yes to consenting to tracking. Absolutely absurd.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    > No one is making you use Facebook Did you ever hear about the network effect? An example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38954091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38954091 > but can't say yes to consenting to tracking You can. But how do you not consent?
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    Are you saying that it's OK for Facebook to break the law and violate users' privacy, because users have the option of not using Facebook? Like, it's OK to mug people in Brixton, because if you don't want to be mugged you can just avoid Brixton? Anyway, Facebook tracks people who've never visited the Facebook website, via their fkin Like button. So yes: people are making me use Facebook.
  - Yujf 3y ago
    There are things you can't put in food even though you can choose not to eat it. Individual action does not work for some issues. This is one of them. Tracking is everywhere. It is not just facebook. It is every website and there is no realistic alternative as an individual user except be excluded from majority of the internet.
  - gampleman 3y ago
    There are plenty of jobs where not using Facebook is not an option. "You could just get a different livelihood" is generally above the threshold of when the legal system considers it "forcing" someone. Don't like working 14 hour days? Just get a different job... is not how worker rights work (at least in Europe).
tzs 3y ago
> Ethically, paying for privacy has in my opinion no place in a post-GDPR world (and I do support the GDPR) and it's shameful that several DPAs have tacitly approved of it for local newspapers. Is that paying for privacy or paying with privacy?

TomasEkeli 3y ago

could you please explain what those abbreviations mean? I know GDPR, but the rest are obscure to me.

noirscape 3y ago
NOYB: "None of Your Business", it's the site being linked. They're a customer rights activist group led by Max Schrems whose self-declared job appears to be "drag every business in the world to the attention of the DPAs to make sure they're both compliant and don't do any funny business with the GDPR". DPA: Data Protection Authority. They're local to each EU country (including those that aren't full Member States but do follow EU laws) and it's their job to enforce the GDPR at a country level. Usually they're a government department. The one you hear the most in the context of GAFAM enforcement is the Irish one, which is infamously underequipped and overburdened because GAFAM has lobbied the Irish government to not take enforcement seriously so all GAFAM companies can put their EU headquarters there (which permits them to only have to comply with the Irish DPA, something called the "one-stop shop" solution.) CJEU: Court of Justice of the European Union. Think SCOTUS but for the EU. While technically the CJEU doesn't operate on the concept of precedent (its main job is enforcing that Member States follow EU laws and directives correctly), their interpretations of EU law are the final interpretation of those laws. Usually once a case has gone through a DPA and isn't resolved satisfactorily (or isn't complied with), it ends up before CJEU. GAFAM has dragged basically all enforcement cases before CJEU to drag out the process. GAFAM: An abbreviation referring to the five largest American tech giants: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft. Usually is used as a shorthand for the "big tech" side of the IT industry.
- screwt 3y ago
  With Google->Alphabet and Facebook->Meta, we can now use MAAAM instead.
  - knowriju 3y ago
    I personally would prefer MAMAA instead
- ahahahahah 3y ago
  Interesting, how many of the 100s of newspapers in the EU that are doing exactly the same thing as Facebook has he dragged into court for doing it? They've been doing it for a lot longer. I do see some cases against Conde Nast, but that's not for this behavior. I do think it's good though when somebody will go and try to take the most extreme position of some law so that the lawmakers will maybe realize that they got it wrong.
  - cccbbbaaa 3y ago
    https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-beginning-end https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illegal-decides-german-dpa https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...

latexr 3y ago

> the "as easy to withdraw as it is to give" setup would be kept in such a situation I think. Debatable. Let’s say the base fee was 1€ and premium was 1000000€. Not many people could afford the latter. Even if it were 25€, or 10€, or even lower, as long as there’s any price discrepancy, one is not as easy as the other.

xvector 3y ago
Who cares? No one is making you use Facebook. It is totally okay to walk away and say "nah, I don't want to be tracked." You can consume alcohol and various drugs in the EU but can't say yes to consenting to tracking. Absolutely absurd.
- fsflover 3y ago
  > No one is making you use Facebook Did you ever hear about the network effect? An example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38954091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38954091 > but can't say yes to consenting to tracking You can. But how do you not consent?
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  Are you saying that it's OK for Facebook to break the law and violate users' privacy, because users have the option of not using Facebook? Like, it's OK to mug people in Brixton, because if you don't want to be mugged you can just avoid Brixton? Anyway, Facebook tracks people who've never visited the Facebook website, via their fkin Like button. So yes: people are making me use Facebook.
- Yujf 3y ago
  There are things you can't put in food even though you can choose not to eat it. Individual action does not work for some issues. This is one of them. Tracking is everywhere. It is not just facebook. It is every website and there is no realistic alternative as an individual user except be excluded from majority of the internet.
- gampleman 3y ago
  There are plenty of jobs where not using Facebook is not an option. "You could just get a different livelihood" is generally above the threshold of when the legal system considers it "forcing" someone. Don't like working 14 hour days? Just get a different job... is not how worker rights work (at least in Europe).

tzs 3y ago

> Ethically, paying for privacy has in my opinion no place in a post-GDPR world (and I do support the GDPR) and it's shameful that several DPAs have tacitly approved of it for local newspapers. Is that paying for privacy or paying with privacy?